RAJESH KUMAR Vs. DELHI GOVT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 25th August, 2003 dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondent for his compassionate appointment.

(2.) The father of the petitioner herein died on 4th June, 2002 in harness and at the time of his death, he was working with the Directorate of Education as Upper Division Clerk (UDC). On the death of the father of the petitioner, the terminal benefits were paid to the family. A sum of Rs. 5,45,816/- was received by his family as terminal benefits. The wife of the deceased is also receiving a family pension of Rs. 2,350/- plus dearness allowance. After about six months of the death of the father, the elder son of the deceased filed an application praying for his compassionate appointment. The said request of the petitioner was considered by the respondent. But the same was rejected by the respondents by their order dated 10th April, 2003 on the ground that he was not suitable for compassionate appointment due to the reasons that the family received a sum of Rs. 5,45,816/- towards terminal benefits and that the family of the deceased is receiving a family pension of Rs.2,350/- plus Dearness allowance and that the family already owns residential house and, therefore, the case of the petitioner is not a genuine and deserving case for a compassionate appointment. The said decision of the respondent was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the financial condition of the family of the petitioner and also the records of the case and, thereafter on appreciation thereof, it was held that there is no penury circumstances which would entitle the petitioner for job on compassionate grounds. It was also held by the learned Tribunal that the grounds on which the request of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent, was not challenged before the Tribunal and since the retiral benefits and terminal benefits are being received by the family, therefore, the case would not come within the purview of a deserving case and accordingly, the same was rejected by the Tribunal.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted before us that the aforesaid amount which have been received by the family of the deceased was on account of terminal benefits and therefore, the decision of the respondent that it is not a deserving case was arbitrary and unreasonable.